Lua-Nunez v. Holder

Ninth Circuit

Lua-Nunez v. Holder

398 F. App'x 183

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 29, 2010

Docket04-71578, 04-72959

StatusUnpublished

This text of 398 F. App'x 183 (Lua-Nunez v. Holder) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lua-Nunez v. Holder, 398 F. App'x 183 (9th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

In these consolidated petitions for review, Alfonso Lua-Nunez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order and denying his motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Sara-via-Paguada v. Gonzales, 488 F.3d 1122, 1129 n. 10 (9th Cir.2007), and for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002). We deny the petitions for review.

Lua-Nunez’s due process retroactivity contentions are unavailing because he pleaded guilty after the enactment and effective date of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. See Saravia-Paguada, 488 F.3d at 1132-33 (the past relevant conduct for *184 the retroactivity analysis is the alien’s decision whether to enter a guilty plea or to proceed to trial, and not the commission of the underlying crime).

We reject Lua-Nunez’s contentions regarding alleged violations of international law. See generally Sosa v. Alvarez-Ma-chain, 542 U.S. 692, 734-85, 124 S.Ct. 2739,159 L.Ed.2d 718 (2004).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lua Nunez’s motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of law or fact in the BIA’s prior order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).

PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

In these consolidated petitions for review, Alfonso Lua-Nunez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order and denying his motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Sara-via-Paguada v. Gonzales, 488 F.3d 1122, 1129 n. 10 (9th Cir.2007), and for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002). We deny the petitions for review.

Lua-Nunez’s due process retroactivity contentions are unavailing because he pleaded guilty after the enactment and effective date of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. See Saravia-Paguada, 488 F.3d at 1132-33 (the past relevant conduct for *184 the retroactivity analysis is the alien’s decision whether to enter a guilty plea or to proceed to trial, and not the commission of the underlying crime).

We reject Lua-Nunez’s contentions regarding alleged violations of international law. See generally Sosa v. Alvarez-Ma-chain, 542 U.S. 692, 734-85, 124 S.Ct. 2739,159 L.Ed.2d 718 (2004).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lua Nunez’s motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of law or fact in the BIA’s prior order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).

PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

398 F. App'x 183, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lua-nunez-v-holder-ca9-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack